Slashdot Mirror
Should The US Government Break Up Google, Twitter, and Facebook? (siliconvalley.com)
The Bay Area Newsgroup reports:
Political momentum for a crackdown on Silicon Valley's social media giants got a boost this week when a state attorney general said he would tell U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions next week that Google, Facebook and Twitter should be broken up. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry wants the federal government to do to the social media firms what it did to Standard Oil in 1911, according to a Louisiana newspaper report Tuesday... "This can't be fixed legislatively," Landry told the paper. "We need to go to court with an antitrust suit." He or another high official from his office will next week present the break-up proposal to Sessions... Landry, president of the National Association of Attorneys General, had spent months with his colleagues probing what they described as anti-competitive practices by Facebook, Google and Twitter, according to the paper.
CNET reports: On Friday, Bloomberg reported it had obtained a draft of a potential White House executive order that asks certain government agencies to recommend actions that would "protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias." The order, reportedly in its preliminary stages, asks US antitrust authorities to "thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws."
CNET reports: On Friday, Bloomberg reported it had obtained a draft of a potential White House executive order that asks certain government agencies to recommend actions that would "protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias." The order, reportedly in its preliminary stages, asks US antitrust authorities to "thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws."
All of these sites depend on pure mass to be useful to users. They don't want to have to be members of four different Facebook analogues. Break them up, and users will eventually flock to one site, and we are back where we started.
And how will this work? You get assigned to FB1, your wife to FB2, etc? Will you be allowed to leave one site for another? It is just unworkable.
They gave them a pass so I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for these
However, *should* they is a different question, and I'd say they should have broken up MS as well. They just didn't, against all common sense.
Its a direct conflict for a cable company to be your ISP. So lets split that up first since there is a clear line
Social networks have no honor, so need a right to privacy bill to protect the users and ban ghost tracking of those who dont use it
I can understand Google and Fecesbook but why Twitter?
IMHO a better solution would be stop allowing "de facto" common platforms to censor people that goes against their political ideology. Business should be free from politics. (Yeah, I know, a pipe dream, but we need to start somewhere.)
Breaking them up won't solve anything. Your data will *still* be sold. Instead of 1 company selling it, it will be ~3x more.
And why not, it worked with AT&T.
... Oh, wait....
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
If a company hasn't done something wrong, the government has no business doing anything to them.
Sorry to burst your bubble but companies can get around the law or engage in lawless behavior before policies of the state can catch up leading to all sorts of disasters. Right now technology has undermined american dogma's like accountability in markets. The videogame industry being a prime example, the internet allowed US videogame companies to steal videogame software because their customers cannot reach these companies. So they can forcibly defraud users without their consent because users would need physical closeness to the business to have any market power at all. So the internet has created total market failure in videogames since customers have zero power to influence the behavior of these companies.
New terminology is going to have to be invented for what the internet has done to society and it takes a while to do the necessary research. Old free market ideology does not describe what is happening in society anymore, that's the reality on the ground.
But the software isn't a product. It's just an OS that comes with the computers. It's no different than buying a router and having that company's firmware locked in to use it. As for iOS and unsigned apps... perhaps, but then they would sacrifice device safety, privacy and integrity and you'd lose a ton of functionality (or have to lock out all unsigned apps from being able to access absolutely anything on your device.
Betteridge got it right, again. Facebook, Twitter and Google all have viable alternatives that are easy to access, the fact that few use them is irrelevant. Also, there is little standing in the way of people setting up their own alternatives to all of these platforms. There are things that need investigating at Facebook and Google but I know of nothing warranting breaking them up.
Before you condemn me, I hate Facebook, think social media is scourge on society. However, it seems like more than anything else that this is just sour grapes over how these private businesses conduct themselves. There is an argument to be made for the social good but it defies every argument put forth by Republicans over governments interfering with businesses. If you want to do what's best for society then you also need to behave consistently.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Jeff Landry.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding videogames.
Could you give some specific case?
In the 90's, pre internet, game companies had to give you all the files - the complete software when you bought a game. So in the late 90's CEO's came up with a fraudulent scheme to get naive and irrational public used to the idea of buying games you don't own or control because they knew most people were computer illiterate. Like how they took Ultima rpg's in development and reballed them Ultima online, to get the subscription money, aka paying monthly for a game you never own. MMO's were the plot to take regular PC rpg's and move them out of gamers hands and into the control of developers/publishers, now this couldn't happen without the internet. Where they chop up the software into two chunks and only give you one piece.
Good examples are diablo 2 vs diablo 3, diablo 2 you fully control the single+multiplayer on a machine, aka if blizzard ever goes out of business you can still play the campaign and the multiplayer with friends. Diablo 3 PC is fully controlled by blizzard with bizarre streaming tech that introduced single player lag because of authentication checks. Any game where you have to "login" = you don't own it, means your being taken for a ride. AKA they can pull the plug at any time and your software goes bye bye, even though you paid for it. So before high speed internet penetration was everywhere you got complete games after they are basically committing fraud by producing games in a hostile manner, they got with this because customers are 100's of miles away. AKA the internet made it trivial to steal software by simply NOT releasing the whole software and keeping a part of it on corporate computers inside their offices.
Disney needs breaking up.
Summation 2
I am coming from the perspective of abuse of collection/collation (they know things about us that we do not know that they know) and then how they use that data (often to someone else's advantage). These are aspects of privacy, but more than is generally understood by the term 'privacy'.
The audit would need to be carried out by people who are: trusted, independent and not bribeable (I wish). Their audits should be made public. The audit could mean one or more of:
Once we know this we might be in a position to decide what we do with these Internet giants.
Meemaw and peepaw are on Facebook, mom is on Pinterest, the kids are on Instagram and great-granddad is on Myspace and his girfriend on 2.Life.
Instead of breaking them up the government can simply put them out of business by passing privacy laws with some teeth. When they can't sell your info then their biggest revenue stream goes right down the drain.
Just resurrect the Fairness Doctrine and apply it specifically to these companies.
Perhaps they'll just relocate to a certain emerald isle kind of like a certain fruit-themed company did.
My understanding is that they cite themselves as being publishers under the law in some contexts and effectively communications companies in other...
and as is typical they change their identification depending on what is most convenient for them.
Publishers for example are responsible for their content and communications companies have "safe harbor".
Publishers can police their content and communications companies cannot unless there is a legal violation.
So if Google is a publisher they are liable for all content on their service personally and cannot cite safe harbor.
If Google is a communications company then they cannot remove content from their services unless it violates the law.
Simply doing that would solve most of the current shit show.
Google would reflexively be forced to be a communications company because the publisher condition imposes too much overhead to be practical. That would remove the concern that google is biasing content. End of argument.
Literally just apply the law and don't let them change their identification. They can choose whichever they like. Totally their choice. And then then apply the law. Done.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes to Google. They've got their hands in too many pies. Force them to be broken into the search engine/Gmail, Android & Chrome, YouTube, and all the other shit they do. No to Twitter and Facebook, because all they do is their websites. If they get into anything outside of that, then force them to spin off those other units.
Generally, I'd say that any large corporation ought to be broken up if they are involved in multiple connected enterprises. But if their business is just one thing, then no.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you're looking for anti-competitive and customer intrusive behaviour, you don't need to look any further (and they've been convicted of it besides).
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I would suggest that all posts on Facebook and Twitter be funneled through a trustworthy group of House of representatives members, and they who know what is good and right can stop anything that they know is not good from ever being posted, and on repeat offenses, exercise a second amendment solution on the guilty party.
But Americans - this is not enough. Our dear leader tells us every day about the terrible lies the media tells about him.
We must extend the telling of only the truth to all forms of media, and merciless crushing of those who would bear false witness, and God will reward America once again.
Even better, shut down all media liars immediately, and set up a Government run Ministry of Truth..
Oh......what.... hold on...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What would a broken-up Twitter look like? They only have the Twitter network itself, and Periscope, and 99% of the company is Twitter. Splitting them up would still leave Twitter being just as big and problematic. Trying to split the Twitter network won't work - everyone will just switch to one of them. Even if you try to do it on national or regional lines, half the accounts I follow are foreign so I'd end up using them (or more likely, an aggregation service), and then you're right back where you started.
Facebook has some more substantial products besides their core Facebook. There's WhatsApp, Instagram, Oculus... I'd love for Oculus to go independent, the main reason I refuse to buy their hardware is that they're owned by Facebook and are thus guaranteed to turn evil at some point. A breakup here would actually do something. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's not completely unproductive like a Twitter breakup.
Google is too big. Search, GMail, Android, Chrome, Chromebooks/ChromeOS, Youtube, Drive, Docs, Pay, Play, Plus, Blogger, AppEngine/Cloud, Waze, Project Fi... the network effect is huge and it's clearly anticompetitive - and I didn't even list Alphabet's separate holdings, which include Waymo and Google Fiber. They need to be broken up. They're already anticompetitive as hell.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter currently enjoy legal protections against copyright infringement, defamation of character, and other kinds of legal issues because they claim that they are just redistribution information with no editorial control. Obviously, that is a sham.
The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites.
No breakup needed, the problem will take care of itself with a few lawsuits.
It'll be like AT&T.
Eventually, weak sisters will die off and the remainders will agglomerate back into a whole.
A better option would probably be some form of Internet Bill of Rights, backed by outsized fines where the minimum amounts start at "ruinous" and move up from there.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Why just those three? Microsoft didn't suddenly become a cuddly teddy bear and Amazon is well on its way to full evil too. Or don't break up any of them. Just don't play favorites, and try to serve the greater good.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The irony about this is that Trump only wants the companies investigated because they arenâ(TM)t biased to him. Notice he isnâ(TM)t asking Fox News to be investigated. He wants all media to act like his propaganda machines.
The U.S. government could "Break up" Google, Twitter, and Facebook? And Microsoft?
I think the government is not well-managed, either. It would be a mistake to think that the government would know what to do to correct the problems. At least that is true of the U.S. government we have now.
Those companies need better management. A long time ago I had a long discussion about Google management with a mid-level Google manager. The manager said that "Google has more money that it knows how to spend". Also, that Google didn't help staff understand what was happening at Google.
Google is EXTREMELY important in my opinion, because of the Google search engine. (People say that Microsoft's Bing search is used to find Google search. Ha!)
However, in other ways, in my opinion, Google has been poorly managed. Android should have been released in a way that allows updates. Now, many web sites use a Google facility, so Google tracks people in a way that is socially offensive.
"Break up" implies destruction. What is needed is better management.
Being a company isn't the problem.
Once you've become a behemoth of a company who can manipulate popular opinion on a whim, now you're no longer just a company. You're either an ally or an adversary depending on the beliefs of the CEO, or how deep your pocketbook is. The Party in power loves these platforms as long as they are useful to them. Once they're not, we start seeing calls to break them up because of how much influence they wield over the population.
This is why it's dangerous to allow media giants to consolidate. You're putting an awful lot of power into the hands of too few people. In effect, we're letting a very few subtly influence how the majority thinks. I shouldn't have to explain how dangerous that is.
Here in the US, there isn't any neutral news anymore. They're propaganda channels for Team Red or Team Blue. You absolutely cannot watch the news without some sort of political bias inserted somewhere. ( Which is why I quit watching it at all )
So, yes. There are a lot of companies that need to be broken up and forbidden from ever becoming one again. Media companies, Content Provider / Content Delivery, Telecoms, Banks / Investment Houses, etc.
The problem is these same companies wield an awful lot of influence and money over the very people who should be regulating them.
( Why would I break up a company that will help my team win the next election ? )
Which is why they still exist at all in their current form.
You could have a setting that by default only allows apps from the Apple store but if you want you can load from other stores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Why Twitter? WTF would you even break twitter up into? All it has is twitter. That's just Trump getting butthurt that he can't get infowars tweets anymore.
Google makes a bit more sense, but still, what would you break it up into? Would you separate youtube from search, would that really affect things? What about Alphabet as a whole? Regulation and investigation would make more sense.
But Facebook, Facebook is an easy yes. Facebook is trivial to break up into Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp. They're all separate entities that would compete with each other if they weren't all owned by the same company.
Ontario Hydro (the electricity monopoly in, well, Ontario) is limited to doing one of three things: generating (one company), long lines (another) and delivery (a third, sometimes replaced by a local monopoly like Toronto Hydro).
It can't sell you kettles and refrigerators anymore: the old Hydro Store is no more.
Its still something of a pain, due to diseconomies of scale, but it's not actually going to change an election or get you swatted (;-))
davecb@spamcop.net
The more important candidates are AT&T (again!), Verizon, and Comcast.
Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
Next question.
Corporatism != Free Market
I'm lately seen value in just barring online platforms from targeted advertising. This makes the collection of private data useless. Concurrently it immediately halts the issues with proven violations of Equal Employment and Equal Housing rights.
When social media selects to shadowban and remove political discussions? Search engines that rank a side of domestic politics?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
"Smaller units with simpler well-defined purposes are inherently easier to manage...
That makes sense to me. However, "break up" is not a good way of expressing "limiting management to divisions that are easier to manage".
Also, I see no evidence that the U.S. government is, at present, capable of a careful, thoughtful arrangement of divisions.
Where does it stop? Why some but not all? Who decides? What is the core legal rationale?
Seems to me like a huge politically driven can of worms... a slippery/slimy slope to oblivion.
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Actually didn't find any insightful comment that addressed the political reasons they are trying it now. Really bad, even dictatorial, reasons.
Anti-trust is a better reason, but I think there should be some improvements in the rationale. Here's my suggestion:
Pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation to make it natural for monopolies to reward themselves by reproducing rather than just growing like insane cancers. Implementation is simple: Progressive taxation of profits based on market share. If a company becomes too dominant, it actually can increase its retained profits by dividing itself into competing companies. The fundamental goal should be to seek at least 3 to 5 competitors to choose from in each market niche.
In the cases of legitimately natural monopolies the high taxes should pay for careful regulation of the monopoly and research to break the monopoly. DSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
50% of the country's online sales are concentrated with a single vendor. They can squeeze suppliers mercilessly. They can play favorites, drive companies out of business, essentially whatever they want. That's seems far more serious than search.
I'm mildly familiar with the power routing and balancing problem, and it's horrible, far worse than problems like finding a valid dependency tree for libraries *. (It's due for another look, preferably by our AI overlords, as humans find it hard (;-))
Over and above being supervised to death, they have the normal diseconomies of scale that big companies have, such as the late delivery of software to do their billing.
What they don't do is negligently threaten people's lives and elections. It's a trade-off.
--dave
[That particular problem is NP-complete]
davecb@spamcop.net
During Standard Oil's heyday, a consumer wanting to escape from the monopolist's grip would've had to drill for oil himself and build his own refineries.
If you were a Windows user and wanted to kiss Microsoft goodbye, you still had to remove Windows from your hard drive and buy/download/compile all your apps for your preferred alternative OS, if at all possible.
Escaping the Google search engine monopoly, according to my latest information, requires the following steps:
1. launch browser
2. type "bing.com" into the address bar
3. hit "Enter"
This has to be the cutest "monopoly" in the history of antitrust legislation.
Tell that to Adobe users.
Then what's the revenue model for the service? Is there one?
There used to be a paid social network with no ads. I can't even remember what it was called.. A social network, true to name, is deeply reliant on the network effect, ie, its value increases geometrically as the number of nodes in the network increases linearly. I honestly don't think it's possible to break into the market for mainstream social networks at this point; the only real approach left now is to find a niche, and increase the signal-to-noise ratio sufficiently to make it compelling - LinkedIn, for example.
Oh - not the one I remembered, but I found something called Vero that offers a subscription-based social network, with its first million-ish members getting free-for-life memberships. I guess such a thing does still exist, but the exception proves the rule, as they say.
Small sites not exercising editorial control is a goddamn nightmare. Have you ever been a member of one on the receiving end of the Goon Squad, or worse, advertising bots? If all speech must be allowed and protected, does that include speech facilitated by machine?
Based on a narrative that Facebook, Twitter, et. al. are engaged in an alleged campaign to censor conservative voices and opinions, and to suppress news that supports a conservative narrative.
The more cynical might observe that these companies are large contributors to Democratic candidates for office, and that this is an attempt at retaliation.
If your cell phone company was kicking you off the service for uttering certain words, you might feel differently!
Alternative Right.
Any corp with more than 1000 employees